Digests
Latest Posts
 Vaccine Verdict: Navigating Employment Law and Mandatory Vaccination in Shepherd v South Australia [2024]
This case, Shepherd v The State of South Australia [2024] SAET 2, involves an employee, Mr. Daniel Shepherd, who sought a review of a decision to reject his compensation claim for pericarditis which he claimed was caused by having a third dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. The respondent, the State of South Australia, admitted that the vaccine caused pericarditis but argued that the injection did not arise from employment but from a lawful State Government vaccination directive. The respondent also contended that any liability for any injury is excluded by legislation. The case was heard in the South Australian Employment Tribunal.FACTSThe case in question is Shepherd v The State of South Austral
  •  · 
  •  · YJ, Lim
AZC20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 26 (6 September 2023) Intro:- This is an appeal from the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. Facts:- The underlying facts "reveal an extraordinarily long deprivation of the [appellant's] liberty by way of executive detention". The appellant, a citizen of Iran, arrived in Australia by boat in July 2013 and has been in immigration detention ever since, his protection visa application having been finally refused in February 2021 Following the final determination of his visa application in February 2021, the appellant commenced proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against the M
  •  · 
  •  · YJ, Lim
Vunilagi v The Queen [2023] HCA 24 (8 August 2023) Facts: The appellant, with three co-accused, was charged with offences against ss 54 and 60 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ("the Crimes Act (ACT)"). His trial in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory was listed to commence on 7 September 2020. On 13 August 2020, Murrell CJ made an order under s 68BA(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) that the proceeding be tried by judge alone. The background to the enactment of s 68BA and the order made by Murrell CJ was the onset of the COVID‑19 pandemic and the requirements of public health emergency declarations, which had an impact on jury trials. In late March 2020, the Supreme Court
  •  · 
  •  · YJ, Lim
CCIG Investments Pty Ltd v Schokman [2023] HCA 21 (2 August 2023) Intro:- This is an appeal from the Supreme Court of Queensland Facts:- In late 2016 the respondent, Mr Schokman, commenced employment with the appellant at Daydream Island Resort and Spa as a food and beverage supervisor. The island is part of the Whitsunday Islands, which are situated off the coast of Queensland. His employment contract contained a clause which stated "[a]s your position requires you to live on the island, furnished shared accommodation located at Daydream Island Resort and Spa will be made available to you while you are engaged in this position at a cost of $70 per week". The contract also referred to a tena
  •  · 
  •  · YJ, Lim
Disorganized Developments Pty Ltd v South Australia [2023] HCA 22 (2 August 2023) Intro:- This is an appeal from the Supreme Court of South Australia. Facts:- Section 83GD(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ("the 1935 Act") makes it an offence for a participant in a criminal organisation to enter or attempt to enter a "prescribed place". For the purposes of that offence, the Hells Angels motorcycle club is a criminal organisation. The second and third appellants, Mr Stacy and Mr Taylor, are members of that motorcycle club and, accordingly, they are participants in a criminal organisation for the purposes of s 83GD(1). This appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of the
  •  · 
  •  · YJ, Lim
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Thornton [2023] HCA 17 (14 June 2023) Intro:- The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia concluded that the appellant's decision under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) refusing to revoke a decision to cancel the respondent's visa gave rise to jurisdictional error because the appellant took into account a consideration made irrelevant by s 85ZR(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) – namely the respondent's offending as a child for which no conviction was recorded – when, under s 184(2) of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), the respondent was taken never to have been convicted of any of those offences
🔥 "Justice Prevails: Iranian's Visa Case Overturned!" 🔥
  •  · 
  •  · YJ, Lim
Did visa criterion in cl 790.227 of Sch 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) permit Minister to refuse to grant visa solely on ground that it is not in national interest to grant SHEV visa to person convicted of people smuggling? In a landmark decision, an Iranian plaintiff's appeal for a SHEV visa was upheld, overturning the prior refusal by the Minister for Home Affairs. The court ruled that the Minister's refusal based on national interest was inappropriate. A victory for justice, this case sets a precedent for future immigration rulings. JusticePrevails VisaVictory ImmigrationReform ENT19 v Minister for Home Affairs [2023] HCA 18 (14 June 2023) Intro: The plaintiff sought judi
High Court Ruling on Victoria's ZLEV Charge Act Sets Constitutional Precedent
Vanderstock v Victoria [2023] HCA 30 (18 October 2023) Introduction: In a landmark decision, the High Court of Australia recently rendered judgment on Vanderstock v Victoria [2023] HCA 30, a case challenging the validity of Victoria's Zero and Low Emission Vehicle Distance-based Charge Act 2021. This case delved into the intricate interplay between sections 51(ii) and 90 of the Australian Constitution, shedding light on the taxation powers of both the Commonwealth and State governments. The Court's ruling, which declared a section of the Victorian Act invalid, has significant implications for fiscal federalism and the balance of power between states and the federal government in Aust
  •  · 
  •  · YJ, Lim
QYFM v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 15 (17 May 2023) Intro: This is an appeal from a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. Facts:- The matter before the Full Court was an appeal by the present appellant, who is a citizen of Burkina Faso. The respondents to the appeal were the present respondents, the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs ("the Minister") and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the AAT"). The appeal was from a decision of a single judge of the Federal Court dismissing an application by the appellant for judicial review of a decision of the AAT.
  •  · 
  •  · YJ, Lim
McEwan v Clark & Ors [2023] QCA 120 (2 June 2023) Intro:- This is an appeal from the Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane. Facts:- In 2019, the appellant was charged with 30 offences, alleged to have been committed under the Criminal Code (Cth) and the Criminal Code (Qld), which include allegations that she attempted to dishonestly obtain a financial advantage from the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), dishonestly influenced a Commonwealth official, and engaged in forgery and uttering. The appellant is currently being prosecuted in the Magistrates Court with respect to those offences. On 12 December 2022, Magistrate Saggers made two relevant orders: (a) the first was that there be a d
  •  · 
  •  · YJ, Lim
El Khouri v Gemaveld Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCA 78 (26 April 2023) Intro: The applicants invoke this Court’s supervisory jurisdiction seeking to quash development consent granted by the Land and Environment Court over the first respondent’s neighbouring land because they have established on evidence which was not before that Court that the development exceeds a height restriction applicable to the land. Following a remitter at which facts were found, the principal and dispositive issue is one of statutory construction, namely, whether compliance with the height restriction is a jurisdictional fact which can be reviewed by this Court on the basis of evidence not before the Land and Environment Cour
  •  · 
  •  · YJ, Lim
Parry v Secretary, Department of Health [2023] HCA 9 (16 March 2023) Intro:- By way of an application for a constitutional writ filed on 20 December 2022, the plaintiffs seek a writ of certiorari quashing the respondent Secretary's decision (or decisions) under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth) ("the TG Act") in relation to use of the SPIKEVAX (elasomeran) COVID-19 vaccine in children six months of age and older. The plaintiffs alternatively seek a declaration that the Secretary's decision was made unlawfully. A writ of mandamus was originally sought but that part of the application is no longer pressed. The plaintiffs request expedition. Facts:- There is some ambiguity as to whether the
SSL Certificates